NAND KISHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant (for brevity "the appellant") against the judgment dtd. 30/4/1988 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Kota (for brevity "the learned Trial Court") in Misc. Criminal Suit No. 1/1984 whereby, while convicting him under Sec. 161 I.P.C. and Sec. 5(1)(d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947"), he has been sentenced as under :--

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that on a written complaint dtd. 2/3/1983 (Exhibit-P-1) filed by Shri Narendra Prakash Pancholi-an auto rickshaw driver, an FIR No. 20/1983 came to be registered under Sec. 161 I.P.C. and Sec. 5(1)(d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Act of Act of 1947 wherein, it was alleged that the appellant demanded a sum ofRs. 10/- for not registering a complaint against him of traffic violation committed on 1/3/1983. As per the prosecution case, the appellant was caught red-handed on 2/3/1983 accepting the aforesaid bribe. After investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed under the aforesaid provision. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sec. 161 I.P.C. and Sec. 5(1)(d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Act of Act of 1947. After trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that although, the demand is not corroborated by any evidence and from the testimony of the independent witnesses to the trap proceeding/recovery, i.e., S/Shri Yogendra Kumar Jain (PW- 2) and Ram Meena (PW-3), it is apparent that neither did they witness the complainant paying bribe to the appellant nor, they heard the conversation which took place in between them at that time; however, eschewing merits of the case, in view of the fact that the appellant is aged about 72 years and is facing trauma of this criminal case for last about 41 years, he would feel contended if while maintaining the conviction, the sentence awarded to him is modified in terms that while waiving the substantive sentence, the fine may be enhanced suitably and appropriately. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a judgment of this Court dtd. 26/7/2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 171/1988: Kishan Singh Vs. The State through S.P.E. (C.B.I.).